Amused DF3 Observation

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Realistically, small creatures and objects aren't significantly less resistant to explosions than large creatures; they may not be as tough, but they also have a lot less cross-section (for fragmentation) and volume (for overpressure). GURPS has never tried to model that effect, however.

And what about fall damage?

I haven't read the Pixie species template closely, and I don't remember if they have wings or something, but assuming they don't, a Pixie should have some kind of rather good protection from fall damage.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

And what about fall damage?

GURPS models fall damage somewhat (impact damage based on velocity), though it doesn't model terminal velocity effects of size as far as I know.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

And what about fall damage?

I haven't read the Pixie species template closely, and I don't remember if they have wings or something, but assuming they don't, a Pixie should have some kind of rather good protection from fall damage.

One of their main advantages, they do possess Winged Flight.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

One Explosive Fireball ruins their whole day. And armor thick enough to give even 1 pt of DR weigns somewhat more what they do, to put it mildly.

Does it? They're about 10% of human height, which means 1% of surface area, which means you could have armor of normal thickness for 1% of the weight. If anything, Pixies should be *easier* to armor than normal humans, in terms of carrying the requisite weight of armor.

Might be hard to make it sufficiently flexible at that level of relative thickness, though.

-Max

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Does it? They're about 10% of human height, which means 1% of surface area, which means you could have armor of normal thickness for 1% of the weight. If anything, Pixies should be *easier* to armor than normal humans, in terms of carrying the requisite weight of armor.

Might be hard to make it sufficiently flexible at that level of relative thickness, though.

-Max

But they weigh 1/1728th of normal. By being 'thick enough to provide a point of DR'. You don't do a 1/12th * 1/12 * 1/12 reduction in armor.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

But they weigh 1/1728th of normal. By being 'thick enough to provide a point of DR'. You don't do a 1/12th * 1/12 * 1/12 reduction in armor.

I'm sorry, come again? Why would you reduce the thickness by a factor of 12 just because you're scaling down the surface area? In other words, can you back up your 1/1728th figure with references, or are you just disagreeing about how thick the armor would be?

Note that DF3 gives the weight as 1/25 normal, which makes the armor 4 times THICKER than human armor. 4 mm instead of 1 mm, or whatever, just concentrated on a smaller (Pixie-sized) body.

-Max